[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] What does "accreditation" mean here? (was Re: Equifax hack worse than previously thought: Biz kissed goodbye to card expiry dates, tax IDs etc)

[Rod Rasmussen]

> On Feb 15, 2018, at 1:08 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Two, I think Stephanie here is basically assuming the technical side of this but would like there to be widely accepted standards for various fields to meet in order to be accredited by whatever body is doing it.  So assuming the scissors accreditors exist, what standards about people being able to cut properly do those accreditors all use?
>> 
> 
> This is, I think, what I am trying to avoid.  ICANN doesn't decide how
> ISO picks the 3166 entries.  They might consult chicken entrails, for
> all ICANN cares: it's an external authority that other people
> recognise, so ICANN doesn't need to choose or evaluate or anything.
> Similarly, ICANN doesn't need to decide who is a country.  The UN can
> do that.  This model, which is really down to Jon Postel, is a good
> idea because it prevents ICANN from having to make decisions that are
> way beyond its authority or competence.
> 
> I think the more of that we can shed to other plausibly competent
> bodies who are _already_ doing such jobs, the better.  I don't know
> how INTERPOL decides who is LE and who isn't, and I don't want to have
> to care.
> 

Agree with you here personally, but that said, we use ISO country codes for example since they are well established, published, and nearly universally accepted in many fields.  Also, someone at “ICANN” had to make the decision that that’s what we do (I do think we can blame one particular Internet founder for that decision that we’ve just followed ever since).  I think Stephanie is looking at some fields as not having similarly accepted standards which would be applicable.  I don’t think she’s advocating for ICANN to DO that work, but rather that ICANN encourage appropriate bodies in those fields to undertake such work to produce standards that could be widely accepted.  There may already be standards in some fields that could be used of course, it then becomes a matter of ensuring that those fit, and someone has to make that evaluation in the end.  The checklist for such an evaluation is probably an ICANN implementation thing based on policy principles we develop, and execution of said evaluation is probably some independent examiner, but I’m getting way out into implementation land here - just wanted to make it clear where this concept may lead us.

Cheers,

Rod
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 235 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20180215/565d124d/signature.asc>